Lynn Stuter -- Purdue University weighs in on WTC towers collapse

PURDUE UNIVERSITY WEIGHTS IN ON WTC TOWERS COLLAPSE

By Lynn Stuter

June 26, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

On Wednesday, June 20, 2007, CBS (and other mainstream media sources presumably) made THE big announcement we�ve all been waiting for � Purdue University has solved the mystery of why WTC 1 and 2 fell after being hit by fuel laden jets. Purdue University scientists have generously supplied us with an animation that can be found on YouTube.com.

As I watched the animation on CBS, all the unanswered questions surrounding the fall of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 came flooding back. It appears that while Purdue University scientists solved the mystery of why, they didn�t incorporate those facts that would tend to discredit their theory; namely how the two buildings were compromised.

WTC 1 and 2, 110 stories each, were constructed around a central core of 47 steel columns; the central core being 87� wide by 135� long with steel floor trusses and a steel reinforced lattice shell consisting of 59 steel beams on each 208 foot face joined at each floor by spandrels (connecting the upright beams), also of steel.

1) WTC 1, the North Tower (central core east/west), was struck first, at 8:46 a.m. on the north fa�ade between floors 94 and 98, supposedly by American Airlines Flight 11; a Boeing 767-223ER aircraft carrying approximately 24,000 gallons of jet fuel; WTC 1 fell at 10:28 a.m. The plane struck the building at approximately 470 mph in a pretty much straight on impact of the length of the central core. WTC 1 fell second; 1 hour, 42 minutes after being struck.

2) WTC 2, the South Tower (central core north/south), was struck second, at 9:03 a.m. on the south fa�ade, between floors 78 and 84, supposedly by United Airlines Flight 175; a Boeing 767-222 aircraft carrying approximately 24,000 gallons of jet fuel; WTC 2 fell at 9:59 a.m. The plane struck the building traveling at approximately 590 mph in a direction north by east, the impact striking the width of the central core. WTC 2 fell first; 56 minutes after being struck.

It doesn�t take a rocket scientist to figure out that according to the Purdue University scientist re-creation, WTC 1 should have fallen first, WTC 2 second. But that didn�t happen; the building that sustained the greatest central core damage fell second. This fact alone tends to discredit the Purdue University scientists� �theory� of why the buildings fell.

Add to this the fact that

1) it would take far more jet fuel than was on the jets, burning far longer and far hotter to compromise the steel in the twin towers as shown by at least two steel frame skyscraper fires � the Venezuela fire and the Madrid fire. It is also an established fact that black smoke, what was pouring from WTC 1 and 2 in the aftermath of the jet impacts, is indicative of a smoldering fire, not a hot fire.

2) the towers both fell at near free fall speed indicating the buildings did not collapse but that the structural integrity of the buildings was compromised from the ground up providing little resistance to the force of gravity.

3) the concrete in the buildings was pulverized. Such is not indicative of a collapse where large chunks of the buildings would be left intact even if damaged and where large chunks of the buildings would have fallen away from the buildings instead of into the footprints of the buildings.

4) the myriad of explosions heard coming from the base or sublevels of WTC 1 and 2 in the minutes before they fell.

And since we are also talking �force of impact,� the fact that

5) WTC 1 and 2 were built to withstand the impact of jet planes smaller in size but which flew faster � the Boeing 737 � also has to be added into the equation.

And how is it that the three buildings, WTC 1, 2, and 7, all fell at near free-fall speed, right into their footprints, just as neat as you please? Had any of these buildings toppled, the resulting damage and destruction would have been extensive. But by some miracle or coincidence, not one of these three buildings did. There is no such thing as a coincidence.

Of all the buildings outside the World Trace Center plaza, WTC 7 is the only building that suffered fire and subsequent collapse. It is also the WTC building of greatest distance from WTC 1, even further from WTC 2. Isn�t that just amazing? Standing on the north side of the WTC plaza, and across the street from the WTC plaza, shielded to some degree from the nearest of the twin towers by WTC 6 (which sustained significant damage but no significant fire), WTC 7 nevertheless did catch fire and did collapse at 5:20 approximate on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. WTC 6 was later brought down by controlled demolition; in the recorded words of the contractor, the building was �pulled.�

Then there is that infamous BBC tape that has also found it�s way on to the YouTube.com website; the tape where BBC reporter Jane Stanley is broadcasting the collapse of WTC 7 while you can see the building still standing over her left shoulder. Say what? Another of those unsolved mysteries! Another of those coincidences! One that begs the question of who told BBC the building was going to collapse; something the BBC is keeping quiet about.

Then, of course, we have Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC 7, saying live on air that he told �them� to �pull it�; �pull it� being a term used by controlled demolition as indicated above. WTC 7 fell in a manner eerily reminiscent of all those video clips we have graciously been exposed to by mainstream media over the years showing the controlled demolition of buildings in congested areas where it is important those buildings fall neatly into their own footprints. WTC was flanked on either side by the Verizon Building (west side) and a Post Office (east side). Neither of these buildings caught fire; neither of these buildings had to be demolished as a result of the fall of WTC 1 or 2 even though the Verizon Building was as close to WTC 1 as was WTC 7 and was shielded from WTC 1, as was WTC 7, by WTC 6. Another of those coincidences!

Unfortunately, the Purdue University simulation fails to answer ALL the questions arising from the fall of WTC 1, 2 and 7, making it very obvious that the simulation isn�t even close to credible even though carrying the name of the prestigious Purdue University.

The Purdue University simulation was produced with the support of the National Science Foundation (NSF) who, in their own words, is �an independent US government agency responsible for promoting science and engineering through research programs and education projects.� While one might assume this means they aren�t subject to government control and influence, such an assumption would be grossly inaccurate. NSF is funded by the federal government. What the federal government funds, the federal government controls.

Coincidentally, the NSF is also involved in the writing of the National Science Standards to which state education agencies align their state science exit outcomes, and on which school district curriculum designers build the science curriculums used in classrooms. The National Science Standards are not accurate or objective; rather they support the sustainable global environment agenda which embraces extremist environmentalism.

The Purdue University simulation was also produced with the support of the Northwest Indiana Comptational (as spelled on the simulation) Grid. A search for this group returned no hits; but a search for Northwest Indiana Computational Grid turned up the group who apparently put together this simulation at Purdue University.

Considering that the failure of the Bush Administration to answer glaring inconsistencies, glaring anomalies concerning the fall of WTC 1, 2 and 7, the involvement of the NSF in the simulation tends to suggest yet another attempt by G W Bush to bolster his flagging credibility at a time when more and more professionals are calling for an independent investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.

In light of the Americans who lost their lives on September 11, 2001 and since (first responders who are dying as a result of being exposed to WTC dust and debris); in light of the loss of American and Iraqi lives resulting from the invasion of Iraq resulting from the events of September 11, 2001; in light of the glaring anomalies surrounding the fall of WTC 1, 2 and 7; nothing short of an independent investigation is acceptable. America as a whole, and the people who have died as a result of events on September 11, 2001 deserve nothing less.

As a postscript to this article; I forwarded to the Northwest Indiana Computational Grid a list of questions regarding their simulation. I obtained their e-mail address from their website which invites any and all to contact them for �information and comments.� My e-mail was returned to me by MAILER-DAEMON@mail.rcac.purdue.edu with the following explanation for the return: �</dev/null@mail.rcac.purdue.edu> (expanded from <info@nwicgrid.org>): unknown user: "/dev/null".� Must be another of those unending coincidences!

Post-post script: A reader clued me that the e-mail address for the Purdue University group that produced the simulation being returned �/dev/null� means my e-mail was basically sent directly into what amounts to the trash can. Quite obviously, this simulation produced by Purdue University is as tongue-in-cheek (credible) as their provision of an e-mail address by which to be contacted!

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

August 5, 2007. On July 24, 2007, I received an e-mail from the Northwest Indiana Computational Grid (NICG), apologizing for the failure of the e-mail address and providing the correct e-mail address. I responded by sending them the e-mail that disappeared into the dark abyss of never-never land. What became apparent to me, in the e-mail exchange that followed, is that the computer simulation Purdue produced was based on assumptions that did not incorporate all elements present that day, the most notable of which was the near free-fall speed at which the buildings collapsed into their footprints. When I stated such to Dr Hoffman, he tried to play ignorant of what �near free-fall speed� was. When I responded �I can�t believe, as someone involved in computer science, as someone involved in producing the simulation, you aren�t aware of the laws of physics regarding falling objects, gravity and resistance�, the e-mail exchange ended.

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Mother and wife, Stuter has spent the past ten years researching systems theory with a particular emphasis on education. She home schooled two daughters, now grown and on their own. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site: www.learn-usa.com

E-Mail: lmstuter@learn-usa.com�

Home